Iran threatens to target US bases if conflict breaks out
Iran threatened on Wednesday to target US military bases in the region if conflict breaks out, while President Donald Trump said he was "less confident" about reaching a nuclear deal.
Iran and the United States have held five rounds of talks since April to thrash out a new nuclear deal to replace the 2015 accord that Trump abandoned during his first term in 2018.
Since returning to office in January, Trump has revived his "maximum pressure" campaign on Tehran, backing nuclear diplomacy but warning of military action if it fails.
"All its bases are within our reach, we have access to them, and without hesitation we will target all of them in the host countries," Iran's Defence Minister Aziz Nasirzadeh said in response to US threats of military action if the talks fail.
"God willing, things won't reach that point, and the talks will succeed," the minister said, adding that the US side "will suffer more losses" if it came to conflict.
The United States has multiple bases in the Middle East, with the largest located in Qatar.
Iran and the United States have recently been locked in a diplomatic standoff over Iran's uranium enrichment, with Tehran defending it as a "non-negotiable" right and Washington calling it as a "red line".
In an interview published on Wednesday, Trump said he was "less confident" the United States and Iran could reach a deal, in response to a question on whether he believed he could stop Tehran from enriching uranium.
Iran currently enriches uranium to 60 per cent, far above the 3.67-per cent limit set in the 2015 deal and close though still short of the 90 per cent needed for a nuclear warhead.
Western countries, including the United States and its ally Israel, have long accused Iran of seeking to acquire atomic weapons, while Tehran insists its nuclear programme is for peaceful purposes.
Last week, Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said enrichment is "key" to Iran's nuclear programme and that Washington "cannot have a say" on the issue.
During the interview with the New York Post's podcast "Pod Force One", which was recorded on Monday, Trump said he was losing hope a deal could be reached.
"I don't know. I did think so, and I'm getting more and more -- less confident about it. They seem to be delaying and I think that's a shame. I am less confident now than I would have been a couple of months ago," he said.
"Something happened to them but I am much less confident of a deal being made... May be they don't wanna make a deal, what can I say? And may be they do. There is nothing final," he added.
On May 31, after the fifth round of talks, Iran said it had received "elements" of a US proposal for a nuclear deal, with Araghchi later saying the text contained "ambiguities".
Iran has said it will present a counter-proposal to the latest draft from Washington, which it had criticised for failing to offer relief from sanctions -- a key demand for Tehran, which has been reeling under their weight for years.
On Monday, the United Nations nuclear watchdog began a Board of Governors meeting in Vienna that will last until Friday to discuss Iran's atomic activities and other issues.
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) meeting followed a report issued by it criticising "less than satisfactory" cooperation from Tehran, particularly in explaining past cases of nuclear material found at undeclared sites.
Iran has criticised the IAEA report as unbalanced, saying it relied on "forged documents" provided by its arch-foe Israel.
Agence France-Presse
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Gulf Today
an hour ago
- Gulf Today
Deployment of troops to LA protest divides governors
California Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom is calling President Donald Trump's military intervention at protests over federal immigration policy in Los Angeles an assault on democracy and has sued to try to stop it. Meanwhile, Texas Republican Gov. Greg Abbott is putting the National Guard on standby in areas in his state where demonstrations are planned. The divergent approaches illustrate the ways the two parties are trying to navigate national politics and the role of executive power in enforcing immigration policies. In his live TV address this week, Newsom said that Trump's move escalated the situation and for political gain. All 22 other Democratic governors signed a statement sent by the Democratic Governors Association on Sunday backing Newsom, calling the Guard deployment and threats to send in Marines 'an alarming abuse of power' that 'undermines the mission of our service members, erodes public trust, and shows the Trump administration does not trust local law enforcement.' Thursday, the Republican Governors Association said that showed their Democratic counterparts were 'siding with chaos and lawlessness in the streets over law and order.' The protests in Los Angeles have mostly been contained to five blocks in a small section of downtown; nearly 200 people were detained on Tuesday and at least seven police officers have been injured. In Republican-controlled states, governors have not said when or how they're planning to deploy military troops for protests. Since Trump's return to office, Democratic governors have been calculating about when to criticize him, when to emphasize common ground and when to bite their tongues. The governors' responses are guided partly by a series of political considerations, said Kristoffer Shields, director of the Eagleton Center on the American Governor at Rutgers University: How would criticizing Trump play with Democrats, Republicans and independent voters in their states? And for those with presidential ambitions, how does that message resonate nationally? Democratic governors are weighing a number of considerations. 'There probably is some concern about retributions - what the reaction of the administration could be for a governor who takes a strong stance,' Shields said. And in this case, polling indicates about half of US adults approve of how Trump is handling immigration, though that polling was conducted before the recent military deployment. On other issues, Democratic governors have taken a variety of approaches with Trump. At a White House meeting in February, Maine Democratic Gov. Janet Mills told Trump, ' we'll see you in court ' over his push to cut off funding to the state because it allowed transgender athletes in girls' school sports. Michigan's Gretchen Whitmer, a possible 2028 presidential candidate, publicly sparred with Trump during his first term but this time around, has met with him privately to find common ground. Initially, Hawaii Gov. Josh Green referred to Trump as a 'straight-up dictator,' but the next month he told a local outlet that he was treading carefully, saying: 'I'm not going to criticize him directly much at all.' Democratic governors called to testify before a House panel Thursday on so-called sanctuary policies blasted the use of military troops in the Los Angeles area. Gov. JB Pritzker said Illinois complies with all laws when it comes to immigration while honoring First Amendment rights. 'We will not take away people's rights to peacefully protest,' Pritzker said. 'It's wrong to deploy the National Guard and active duty Marines in an American city over the objection of local law enforcement just as it's wrong to tear children away from their homes.' New York Gov. Kathy Hochul told committee members the focus should be on comprehensive immigration reform. 'As we speak, an American city has been militarized over the objections of their governor,' she said. 'This is a flagrant abuse of power and nothing short of an assault on our American values.' Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, in an interview Wednesday in The Washington Post, said Trump should not send troops to a weekend protest scheduled in Philadelphia. 'He's injected chaos into the world order, he's injected it into our economy, he is trying to inject chaos into our streets by doing what he did with the Guard in California,' Shapiro said. As state attorney general during Trump's first term, Shapiro routinely boasted that he sued Trump over 40 times and won each time. As governor, he has often treaded more carefully, by bashing Trump's tariffs, but not necessarily targeting Trump himself. Florida Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis has often clashed with Newsom, a fellow term-limited governor with national ambitions. Newsom's office said DeSantis offered to send Florida State Guard troops to California. 'Given the guard were not needed in the first place, we declined Governor DeSantis attempt to inflame an already chaotic situation made worse by his Party's leader,' Newsom spokesperson Diana Crofts-Pelayo said in an email to The Associated Press. Associated Press
Gulf Today
3 hours ago
- Gulf Today
Trump approves Nippon Steel's $14.9 billion purchase of US Steel
US President Donald Trump approved Nippon Steel's $14.9 billion bid for US Steel, capping a tumultuous 18-month effort by the companies that survived union opposition and two national security reviews. Trump signed an executive order saying the tie-up could move forward if the companies sign an agreement with the Treasury Department resolving national security concerns posed by the deal. The companies then announced they had signed the agreement, fulfilling the conditions of Trump's directive and effectively garnering approval for the merger. 'We look forward to putting our commitments into action to make American steelmaking and manufacturing great again,' the companies said in the statement, thanking Trump. They added the agreement includes $11 billion in new investments to be made by 2028 as well as governance, production and trade commitments. Nippon Steel will buy a 100 per cent stake in US Steel, a spokesperson for the Japanese company in Tokyo said on Saturday. The steelmakers provided no detail on the 'golden share' they pledged to issue to the US government, raising questions about the extent of US control. ' 'US Senator David McCormick of Pennsylvania, where US Steel is headquartered, said last month the golden share would give the government veto power over key decisions relating to the American steel icon. Reuters has reported that Nippon Steel would invest an additional $3 billion for a new mill after 2028. The takeover will set up the ailing US firm to receive the critical investment, allowing Nippon Steel to capitalise on a host of American infrastructure projects while its foreign competitors face steel tariffs of 50 per cent. The Japanese firm also avoids the $565 million in breakup fees it would have had to pay if the companies had failed to secure approvals. For Nippon Steel, the world's fourth-biggest steelmaker, securing a foothold in the US is key to its global growth strategy. The US steel market, including high-grade steel, Nippon Steel's specialty, is growing amid rising global trade tensions. Still, some Nippon Steel investors are concerned about short-term financial pressure due to the scale of the additional investment commitment. The Japanese government, rushing to try to secure a trade deal with the US by the time Trump and Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba meet at the Group of Seven summit starting on Sunday, applauded the Nippon-US Steel agreement. 'The government of Japan welcomes the US government's decision, as we believe this investment will enhance innovation capabilities in the US and Japanese steel industries and further strengthen the close partnership between our two countries,' Economy, Trade and Industry Minister Yoji Muto said in a statement on Saturday. Friday's announcement was hardly guaranteed, even if many investors had seen approval as likely after Trump headlined a rally on May 30 giving his vague blessing to an 'investment' by Nippon Steel, which he described as a 'great partner.' Shares of US Steel had dipped earlier on Friday after a Nippon Steel executive told Japan's Nikkei newspaper that the takeover required 'a degree of management freedom' to go ahead after Trump said the US would be in control with the golden share. The bid has faced opposition since Nippon Steel launched it in December 2023. After the United Steelworkers union came out against the deal last year, both then-President Joe Biden, a Democrat, and Trump, a Republican, expressed their opposition as they sought to woo voters in the presidential campaign in the swing state of Pennsylvania. Shortly before leaving office in January, Biden blocked the deal on national security grounds, prompting lawsuits by the companies, which argued the national security review they received was biased. The Biden White House disputed the charge. The steel companies saw a new opportunity in the Trump administration, which opened a fresh 45-day national security review into the proposed merger in April. But Trump's public comments, ranging from welcoming a simple 'investment' in US Steel by the Japanese firm to floating a minority stake for Nippon Steel, spurred confusion. While many investors saw approval as likely after Trump headlined a rally on May 30 giving his vague blessing to an 'investment' by Nippon Steel, which he described as a 'great partner', Friday's announcement was hardly guaranteed. The bid, first announced by Nippon Steel in December 2023, has faced opposition from the start. Both Democratic former President Joe Biden and Trump, a Republican, asserted last year that US Steel should remain US-owned, as they sought to woo voters ahead of the presidential election in Pennsylvania, where the company is headquartered. Reuters
The National
3 hours ago
- The National
'We were negotiating': why Israel's attack caught Iran off guard
Less than a month ago in Tehran, senior Iranian diplomats engaged foreign journalists and analysts with a clear message: Iran sought dialogue, not confrontation. It wanted better relations with its Middle Eastern neighbours, they said, and, under the right conditions, with Western nations with which it had long been at odds. There was some optimism – albeit very cautious – about the prospects of reaching an agreement with the US for limitations on its nuclear programme in exchange for much-needed sanctions relief. Senior officials past and present stressed that Iran and its neighbours needed to look at what was possible, rather than be constantly on the look out for perils. 'One of my criticisms of my own country is that we have to depart from a threat-based perspective,' one former senior official said in a background briefing. 'We want an opportunity-based outlook, not a threat-based outlook.' In a glossy cobalt blue book of essays that accompanied the Tehran Dialogue Forum, a conference held by an Iranian Foreign Ministry-affiliated think tank, former Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi argued that US President Donald Trump was hesitant to drag the US into more wars. Saber-rattling would keep Iran on its toes and strengthen Washington's negotiating position 'without actually unleashing a ruinous conflict', Mr Salehi wrote. Iranian officials attempted to emphasise diplomacy, knowing well that Israel favoured military options, and the US had threatened action should nuclear talks collapse. In the following weeks, Iranian officials and observers made clear that they believed Israel wanted to strike, and that any attack could not take place without US knowledge and backing. 'We will immediately respond to the Zionist regime's possible attack on the country's nuclear facilities,' Iran's Supreme National Security Council said in a statement last week, before the Israeli strikes began. Iranian officials and analysts did not expect an attack to happen while there were active plans for more negotiations. US and Iranian officials have been planning to meet for a sixth round of discussions in the Omani capital Muscat on Sunday. 'We were in a limited negotiation process and did not expect military [action],' a senior Iranian government foreign policy researcher told The National on Friday. 'In fact, the Israeli regime sabotaged the diplomacy entirely with military action.' Hassan Ahmadian, assistant professor of West Asian Studies at the University of Tehran, said that 'Israeli warmongering against Iran was obvious and so the attack was never ruled out at any point'. 'Yet many in Iran believed that now the US had chosen dialogue with Tehran, it wouldn't unleash the Israelis against it,' he told The National. That moment came quicker than expected, though. For many in Iran, diplomatic talks have not yet failed, although they were facing significant headwinds over differing stances in Tehran's rights to uranium enrichment. President Trump appeared to justify Israel's attacks, which he later said took place with Washington's knowledge, by noting that a 60-day deadline he had imposed for nuclear talks to succeed had ended on Thursday. The point is that we were in a diplomatic process and we expected the other side to respect this joint diplomatic effort. Iranian government foreign policy researcher Some observers argue that Iran miscalculated the time it had available for negotiations, and Israel's willingness to really go through with an attack. In Tehran, however, many believe Israel miscalculated too, encouraged by what they see as international inertia over its bombing campaigns in Palestine, Lebanon and Syria. And because of the perception of US complicity, Washington is being held responsible as well. 'It's not about underestimating [Israel],' the government foreign policy researcher said. 'The point is that we were in a diplomatic process and we expected the other side to respect this joint diplomatic effort.' The US president was swayed from diplomacy to not saying no to military action, Iranian officials believe. Influence of, "Zionist lobbies" on the US government and "extremists" in US decision-making frameworks "should be considered the reason for this change in approach and finally, Israel carried out this attack," a second senior Iranian government official told The National. Israel's multipronged attack on Iran's nuclear and defence infrastructure has dramatically changed the playing field. As it pledged, Iran has responded, and there is room for further escalation if the exchange of strikes and counterstrikes continues. It has named its continuing strikes against Israel as 'Operation True Promise 3', linking it to previous operations of the same name on the country. Unlike past responses, which carefully balanced force with restraint to avoid spiraling escalation, such caution may now be less of a priority. ' Iran 's response cannot be similar to what happened in October or April 2024,' a regional source close to Iranian thinking and military circles, told The National. 'The proportionate retaliation must be strong enough to deter further Israeli aggression.' The escalation has endangered both the possibility of nuclear talks continuing and the likelihood of them succeeding, even if they resume. Iran's position on attending the negotiations scheduled for Sunday is unclear, its Foreign Ministry spokesman said on Saturday. The framework of thinking in Iran is shifting from diplomacy to war, observers believe. 'I suspect it's [Iran's] preferred diplomatic approach not to go ahead in parallel with the continuing military confrontation with Israel,' said Mr Ahmadian. 'And so, it's war now – diplomacy can only come afterwards.'
